subscribe to this page
Newman, Jon O. EFF: Appellate Decision in Universal v. Reimerdes. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 22 November 2006. <http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/?f=20011128_ny_appeal_decision.html>.
This famous court case involved the publication of the "DeCSS" decryption program on the website 2600.com. "DeCSS" was designed to break through the CSS encryption on DVDs. The action of posting this program challenged the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which bans any measure of breaking through digital encryption, or any publication or distribution of any such measure. Eight film studios, including Universal, brought a suit against the operators of 2600.com, seeking to have "DeCSS" and any links to other sites containing it removed from 2600.com for violations of the DMCA.
The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the DMCA, claiming that it restricts free speech, and called for a narrow construction of its terms. They also claimed that "is rooted in and required by both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment," and that the DMCA restricts this. However, the appeals court found no reasoning for these claims, and upheld an earlier injunction by a lower court requiring the removal of the "DeCSS" program and any links to it.
This case is extremely important because it establishes that arguments regarding fair use and free speech are almost no match for the terms of the DMCA. Were it not for the DMCA, I think it would definitely be easy to argue for my video project as a fair use; however, cases like this clearly state that this is no defense. The court states that there is no constitutional requirement for a fair use standard, and that such claims cannot supersede violations of anticircumvention laws.
McLaren, Carrie. "Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age." illegal-art.org :: A Project of Stay Free! magazine. 2002. Stay Free! magazine. 22 November 2006. .
This is the web site of the "Illegal Art" exhibition which has traveled the United States in the past year. The site contains a copy of curator Carrie McLaren's introduction to the show, in which she states, "The laws governing "intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that artists need legal experts to sort them all out... If the current copyright laws had been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop, and Pop Art might have never have existed... Should artists be allowed to use copyrighted materials? Where do the First Amendment and "intellectual property" law collide? What is art's future if the current laws are allowed to stand? Stay Free! [the magazine sponsoring the "Illegal Art" exhibition] considers these questions and others in our multimedia program." The site also includes a gallery of the various pieces included in the exhibit, which include a Mickey Mouse gas mask, photographs of Barbie dolls in kitchen appliances, a re-interpretation of the Starbucks logo as a "Consumer Whore", and various pieces including the "DeCSS" program. Many of the artists involved in the "Illegal Art" show were or are the targets of legal action by the holders of the copyrights to the works they appropriated.
The "Illegal Art" website is definitely a valuable resource in the creation of my project; through the gallery of the included works, I will be able to see how other creators used appropriated materials to comment directly on the nature of copyright issues. The artists involved in the exhibition used many different media to create their pieces, including a number of video pieces.
Slater, Derek. "Take Another Little Piece of My Art." Illegal Art | Creative Commons. July 2003. Creative Commons. 28 November 2006. <http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart>.
This article describes "Illegal Art", a traveling exhibition which was displayed at the SF MOMA Artist's Gallery in July 2003. The show contained pieces in a variety of media, with a full-length CD and several films and videos in addition to various two- and three-dimensional artworks. Carrie McLaren, curator of the exhibition, began working on an appropriation art exhibit in response to unsuccessful challenges to copyright term extensions; the goal of the exhibit was "to make copyright's problems as real to the average person as they are to [the] featured artists".
The article attempts to place the "Illegal Art" exhibition in the context of the larger legal debate surrounding appropriation art by comparing the pieces in the show to famous copyright cases, such as the 2 Live Crew case. The author also pays close attention to the economic constraints place on appopriation artists by licensing fees, cease-and-desist letters, and other tools of copyright permission holders. Overall, the article sides firmly with the validity of the art and the necessity for its legalization - no surprise, considering that the article is written for the Creative Commons. Succintly summarizing his point, Slater writes, "Had these legal limitations [on appropriation art] existed years ago, perhaps collage, rap, and Pop Art would have been sued to death before they ever had a chance to flourish. These days, the implication is that these appropriations are lower artforms, deserving legal treatment suited to petty thievery."
This article will definitely be very helpful for my project; it provides a general background on the use of appropriation art to comment driectly on copyright issues.